Review Policy

The review policy of JN is important part of the publication process for scholarly submissions. All papers submitted to the Journal of Nasoscope undergo a double-blind peer-review process, where experts in the relevant field review and provide feedback to authors regarding the paper’s suitability for publication. The goal is to ensure the academic quality and rigor of the publication process.

Double-Blind Review Policy:

All papers submitted to JN follow a rigorous double-blind review process. In this process, the identities of both the reviewers and the authors are concealed from each other to maintain impartiality and prevent potential conflicts of interest.

Review and Publication Timeline:

To meet the authors’, need for an efficient review and publication process, the journal has implemented measures to speed up the process without compromising quality. The first step is a desk review, during which the chief editor or editorial board screens the submission. This initial screening, which checks the similarity score and evaluates whether the paper aligns with the journal’s scope and objectives, typically takes 15-20 days. Authors are notified of the decision within a month.

If the paper passes the desk review, it proceeds to peer review. In this second step, the paper is sent to two reviewers who are experts in the relevant research area. The reviewers assess the paper's originality, contribution to the field, coherence of the discussion, and appropriateness of the references. Authors receive reviewer comments, along with a conditional acceptance (pending revisions) or a rejection decision. This step usually takes 30-45 days.

Once revisions are made, the paper undergoes a final review by copy editors, who focus on proofreading and editing. Authors are asked to submit the revised manuscript within 1-3 weeks, after which the paper is prepared for production. Upon request, a print copy can be sent to the corresponding author after publication. Additionally, the journal offers early online production, making the paper available online before the hard copy is published.

Editorial Role in the Review Process and Conflict of Interest Policy:

To ensure the integrity and independence of the review process, papers are sent to distinguished scholars in the relevant field. Reviewers are independent of the editorial board, which primarily recommends potential reviewers and manages the review process. If a paper is submitted by a member of the editorial board, the chief editor assigns the review process to an alternate editorial member to avoid any conflict of interest and ensure impartiality.

Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers:

The Journal of Nasoscope follows strict ethical guidelines for peer reviewers:

  • Reviewers should only review manuscripts for which they have the relevant subject expertise.
  • Reviewers must respect the confidentiality of the peer review process and not disclose any manuscript details.
  • Reviewers should not use information gained through peer review for personal advantage or to harm others.
  • Reviewers must declare any potential conflicts of interest and seek guidance if uncertain about a relevant interest.
  • Reviews must be free from bias based on the authors' nationality, religion, political beliefs, gender, or other personal characteristics, and should not be influenced by commercial considerations.
  • Reviewers should provide objective and constructive feedback, avoiding hostile or inappropriate comments.
  • Reviewers must accurately represent their expertise and refrain from impersonating others during the review process.

Reviewers maintain independence in assessing and reviewing manuscripts as they see fit. Any misconduct, such as impersonation, will be treated as a serious violation of the review process.